Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/BAFTA Award for Best Film/archive1

BAFTA Award for Best Film edit

Article that I restructured, and practically re-built, covers every winner and nominee. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Needs a compact TOC. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Smurryinchester. Also, why do some of the movies have a country next to them, while others don't? Are those unlabled British films? If so, please say so in the lead. Pepsidrinka 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Confused.

What does "Until 1960, and then sporadically later on, the awards for Best Film were not handed out to any one person." mean?
"Films in the Best Film from any Source category without a country next to them are British (pre 1960)." wouldn't be more consistent to just label them? Are there any years that a film won the any source but not the British film category. That would be worth mentioning.
Why is there only one award listed each year after 1968 and why doesn't the lead explain this? Rmhermen 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and answered within article. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot. Support, as self-nom ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing great about this list. It seems as plain text. Could you change the design of the page, maybe a tabular form? CG 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I converted the first section of the page to a table. Is this really better? Rmhermen 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how it's any better. It's a list for christ sakes, what are you expecting? Hanging Gardens of Babylon? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object - it looks really ugly (the started table format looks better, but I don't think it solves all the problems). It has inconsistent formatting (i.e. some list people (directors? producers? actors?), some don't) and a bunch of red links. References are not sufficient (i.e. both of your references list only winners and not other candidates). Renata 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the people thing is actually explained. And I never listed the actors! What are you talking about? And how does the table look now?...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course table looks way better than a plain list. And imentioned actors just because it was unclear who they are and why they are listed... Renata 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the candidates for 1949 and 1950 are the same films is this correct? Rmhermen 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I was halfway through converting 1950 to tabular form. Don't worry, I'll fix it. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]